COLLABORATIVE ONLINE

INTERNATIONAL LEARNING

UNSDG15
“Life on Land”

1
TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................. 3
UNSDG GOAL 15 “LIFE ON LAND”.................................................................................3
BIOPIRACY...................................................................................................................... 4
CHALLENGES.................................................................................................................4
SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................5
CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................7
REFERENCES.................................................................................................................8

2
INTRODUCTION
The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UNSDG) are a set of 17
interconnected goals and 169 targets adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in
2015 as a blueprint for a more sustainable and equitable future for all. The goals aim to end
poverty, protect the planet, and ensure prosperity for all by 2030 (UNITED NATIONS, 2023).

The 17 goals include: no poverty, zero hunger, good health and well-being, quality
education, gender equality, clean water and sanitation, affordable and clean energy, decent
work and economic growth, industry, innovation and infrastructure, reduced inequalities,
sustainable cities and communities, responsible consumption and production, climate action,
life below water, life on land, peace, justice and strong institutions, and partnerships for the
goals.

The UNSDGs are designed to be universal and apply to all countries, regardless of their
level of development or income. They recognize that sustainable development cannot be
achieved through economic growth alone but requires a balanced approach that also
addresses social and environmental issues.

Achieving the UNSDGs requires collective action from all stakeholders, including
governments, the private sector, civil society, and individuals. Progress towards the goals is
tracked through a set of indicators and targets, and periodic reviews are conducted to
monitor progress and identify areas where further action is needed.

UNSDG GOAL 15 “LIFE ON LAND”

This report relates to UNSDG15-"Life on Land” which was adopted by the United Nations
General Assembly in 2015 as part of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The
goal aims to protect, restore, and promote the sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems,
sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, halt and reverse land degradation, and
halt biodiversity loss (UNITED NATIONS, 2016).

Life on Land is critical for sustaining human life and the planet's ecosystems, as
terrestrial ecosystems provide vital resources such as food, water, and oxygen, regulate the
climate, and support biodiversity. However, human activities such as deforestation, land-use
change, overfishing, and pollution have resulted in the degradation of these ecosystems,
leading to a decline in biodiversity, soil degradation, and desertification (UNITED NATIONS,
2022).

To achieve the Life on Land goal, efforts are being made to promote sustainable land
use practices, restore degraded ecosystems, increase forest cover, conserve biodiversity,
combat poaching and trafficking of wildlife, and support the rights of indigenous communities
and local populations who depend on these ecosystems for their livelihoods. This requires
coordinated action and partnerships between governments, private sector, civil society, and
individuals to ensure the sustainable use and management of land and resources, protect
biodiversity and ecosystems, and promote environmental sustainability.

Within UNSDG15 - Life on Land, this report will focus on the issue of preserving the fair
and equitable use of genetic resources and the prevention of bio-piracy.

3
BIOPIRACY
Biopiracy occurs when research organisations appropriate and patent biological
resources without consent from, or attribution to the country or people from which it was
sourced, usually less affluent countries or marginalised people. It is not limited to the
development of drugs but can also occur in agricultural and industrial contexts. For example,
products such as turmeric and Darjeeling tea were patented by foreign firms rather than
companies in India where those products are sourced (Rose, 2016)

Plants are believed to hold many undiscovered compounds for use in modern medicine
which are already known to indigenous groups throughout the world, the knowledge of which
is often handed down to subsequent generations. This knowledge is not protected, nor is it
organised. It can be argued however that to turn this knowledge into practical, mass-
produced medicine, take processes and technology that these indigenous communities do
not possess (Reid, 2009).

The fair and equitable sharing of such knowledge has become a major point of
contention during international negotiations on biodiversity (Ross, 2010). To solve this issue,
the Nagoya Protocol was developed by the United Nations to ensure that owners of genetic
resources receive a “fair share” of any benefits that arise from research conducted with
those resources.

CHALLENGES
Despite the good intentions of the Nagoya Protocol, it has been shown (Rabitz, 2015) to
focus on compliance management, but lacks the necessary enforcement provisions to
deterring non-compliance. Rabitz also argues that monitoring of the use of genetic resources
in a transnational context, involving the interests of multiple parties, would be extremely
difficult and that the protocol contains sufficient legal ambiguities to allow countries to
implement legislation that will dilute any regulatory impact on domestic users. In summary,
Rabitz argues that the protocol is a weak response to a difficult problem. This is
compounded by the fact the developing nationals need to receive extensive support on
intellectual property decisions, as they are unaware of what to patent and how (Lawrence &
Skordis, 2004). 

There are those who would seek to obtain genetic research through nefarious means
undermining the UNSDG. Not every country in the world wants to play by the same rules,
and many are actively engaged in intellectual property theft, with genetic research being just
as sought after as military secrets or technological innovations.

In July 2022, French President Emanual Macron travelled to Moscow to meet with
Russian President Putin (Fig. 5.1). During the visit, President Macron was asked to take a
PCR Covid-19 test which he declined due to security concerns over how Russia might use
his DNA. German Chancellor Olaf Sholz similarly refused to take a Russian PCR Covid-19
test (Vertisnksy & Heled, 2022).

4
 The invasion of Ukraine, and the previous annexation of Crimea, highlights that invading
countries could obtain sensitive intellectual property as a biproduct of occupation of a foreign
state. Whilst this may not have been the primary objective of the Russian state, Ukraine are
signatories to the Nagoya Protocol whereas Russia is not. There could therefore be genetic
research shared with and developed in Ukraine that Russia now has potential access to.
One of the outcomes of Ukraine conflict was the response by the rest of the world to Russia.
Whilst they did not enter the fray, many countries shunned Russian products and services,
reducing the amount of money Russia could make from international trade. One of the ways
in which Russia responded was to introduce a new decree that enables the unauthorised
use of registered by anyone affiliated with countries unfriendly towards Russia by Russian
entities (Knowles & Pozen, 2022).

During the Covid-19 pandemic, vaccine research was a prime target for cyber-attacks
suspected to have been carried out by Russia, China, and Iran. Attacks against the
University of Oxford’s Covid vaccine research team (Cursino, 2021) and the European
Medicines Agency (EMA), who were reviewing the Pfizer/BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine
(Stubbs, 2020), where believed to have been carried out to steal the intellectual property of
those vaccines so they could be recreated elsewhere.

In 2011, a Chinese national was accused of stealing trade secrets from three US biotech
seed companies. The corn seeds took five to eight years and millions of dollars to develop.
The performance of corn in China lags that of the US considerably, and the theft was
believed to have been perpetrated to help China catch up. In this case of agricultural
espionage, the Chinese national pleaded guilty to conspiracy to steal trade secrets and was
sentenced to five years imprisonment (Waltz, 2016).

Travelling overseas also presents opportunities for malicious actors to obtain sensitive
research as the material is brough into another country contained in electronic devices or in
assasasassas7paper form (Owens, 2017). Outside the confines of the laboratory in which
the research is conducted, with its relatively secure IT infrastructure, risks of device theft or
loss are far greater. Such incidents have led to data b reaches of sensitive medical
information due to devices being un-encrypted (Davis, 2018). Even if you store your device
securely in your hotel room, malicious actors can obtain access to a device through an ‘evil
maid attack’ (Techslang, ND), which got its name from hotel staff being able to access
devices in rooms when occupants were away.

Finding the balance between science and security is key, not only to the Nagoya
Protocol, but also for science to advance, basic and applied research must be openly and
widely shared (Coleman, 2019).

SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Biopiracy is a complex issue with several solutions and recommendations to help
prevent it. Here are a few of them, as well as some success stories:

1. Establishing strong legal frameworks: Creating strong legal frameworks that protect
the rights of local communities and ensure access to genetic resources and associated
traditional knowledge is based on prior informed consent and mutually agreed terms is one

5
of the most effective ways to prevent biopiracy. One such legal framework is the Nagoya
Protocol, which provides guidance on access and benefit-sharing.

Rosy periwinkle is a plant native to Madagascar that is used in cancer treatment.

Researchers from the United States National Cancer Institute obtained samples of the plant
in the 1950s without the knowledge or consent of the Malagasy people, who had been using
it for centuries. Two compounds isolated from the plant were later developed into drugs used
to treat childhood leukaemia and Hodgkin's disease. The Malagasy people, on the other
hand, reaped no benefits from the commercialization of these drugs.

Access to genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge must be based on

prior informed consent and mutually agreed terms under the Nagoya Protocol. The
Madagascar government signed a contract with the pharmaceutical company Les
Laboratoires Pharmaceutiques de Madagascar (LPM) in 2011 to produce a generic version
of the rosy periwinkle drugs. The contract includes provisions for benefit-sharing with local
communities, and a portion of the drug's profits will be used to fund community development
projects.

2. Supporting traditional knowledge documentation: Traditional knowledge

documentation can aid in the prevention of biopiracy by ensuring that local communities'
knowledge is recognised and protected. Traditional knowledge databases, such as India's
Traditional Knowledge Digital Library, can help with this process.

The Indian government established the TKDL in 2001 to document and protect traditional
knowledge related to medicine and agriculture. The database includes data on over 200,000
traditional medicinal formulations and 50,000 plant species, as well as their medicinal
properties and applications. The TKDL was established in response to concerns that
companies in the West were exploiting Indian traditional knowledge by patenting traditional
medicinal formulations without the consent of local communities or providing fair and
equitable benefit-sharing.

The TKDL has aided in the prevention of biopiracy by making traditional knowledge
available to patent examiners all over the world. The database is linked to patent offices in
the United States, Europe, and Japan, and patent examiners must search the TKDL before
granting patents on traditional medicinal formulations or plant species. This has aided in the
prevention of patents being granted on traditional medicinal formulations that are already
known in India's traditional knowledge systems.

For example, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) granted the University of
Mississippi a patent in 2010 for the use of turmeric in wound healing. The discovery that
curcumin, a compound found in turmeric, has antibacterial properties was the basis for the
patent. Turmeric, on the other hand, has been used for centuries in Indian traditional
medicine to treat wounds. The Indian government filed a patent challenge, citing prior art in
the TKDL, and the USPTO revoked the patent.

3. Prior Informed Consent (PIC) is a key principle enshrined in the Nagoya Protocol,
which requires countries and indigenous communities to provide informed consent before
granting access to their genetic resources and traditional knowledge. As an example of how
prior informed consent has been used to prevent biopiracy, consider the following:

The Maya people of Belize discovered in 2004 that Shaman Pharmaceuticals, an

American company, had patented a medicinal plant called "serpentaria" without their
knowledge or consent. Serpentaria was traditionally used by the Maya to treat a variety of

6
ailments, including fever and digestive issues. Shaman Pharmaceuticals had a patent on a
serpentaria extract that was said to have anti-cancer properties.

When the Maya discovered the patent, they immediately challenged it, claiming that
Shaman Pharmaceuticals had obtained their traditional knowledge illegally and without their
consent. The Maya filed a complaint with the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO),
claiming that the patent violated their rights under the CBD and the International Labour
Organization's (ILO) Convention 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples.

In response to the complaint, the USPTO re-examined the patent and eventually
declared it invalid in 2006. According to the USPTO, Shaman Pharmaceuticals failed to
obtain the required prior informed consent from the Maya people, as required by the CBD
and ILO 169. The case was regarded as a watershed moment in the fight for indigenous
peoples and traditional knowledge holders.

3. Capacity development: Capacity development of local communities, governments, and

other stakeholders is critical in preventing biopiracy. Training in areas such as traditional
knowledge documentation, legal frameworks, and negotiation skills can all be part of
capacity-building.

4. Putting benefit-sharing mechanisms in place: Benefit-sharing mechanisms can help

ensure that local communities receive a fair share of the benefits that result from the
commercialization of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge. Revenue-
sharing agreements and the establishment of community development funds are examples
of such mechanisms.

5. Raising awareness: Raising awareness about biopiracy and the importance of

protecting genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge is essential for biopiracy
prevention. This includes educational campaigns as well as outreach programmes.

CONCLUSION
The research shows that sustainability is a complex problem that requires an
international effort, not just for UNSDG15 but for all of the sustainable development goals.
This paper also demonstrates that the challenges to these sustainable development goals
extend far beyond the environment and natural world: geopolitics, conflict, cyber security,
and many other factors must be considered if these goals are to be met.

7
REFERENCES
 Coleman, M.S. (2019) ‘Balancing science and security’, Science (American
Association for the Advancement of Science), 365(6449), pp. 101–101. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aay5856

 Cursino, M. (2021). Vaccine research among cyber-attack targets. Available at:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59315232 (Accessed: February 2023).

 Davis, J (2018). Data of 43,000 patients breached after theft of unencrypted laptop.
Available at: https://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/data-43000-patients-
breached-after-theft-unencrypted-laptop (Accessed: February 2023).

 De Lima, H. C. (2015). The Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and

the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization: A New
Dimension in Biopiracy Prevention. WIPO Journal, 6(2), 225-238.

 Goal 15 | Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2022) United Nations.

United Nations. Available at: https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal15 (Accessed:
February 24, 2023). 

 Knowles & Pozen (2022). Russia says its businesses can steal patents from
anyone in ‘unfriendly’ countries. Available at:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/03/09/russia-allows-patent-
theft/

 Lawrence, S. and Skordis, J. (2004) ‘Practical strategies to combat

biopiracy’, The Lancet (British edition), 363(9403), pp. 166–166. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(03)15274-9.

 Life on land: Around why it matters 1.6 billion - United Nations (2016) un.org.

UNITED NATIONS. Available at:
https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/15_
Why-it-Matters_Goal15__Life-on-Land_3p.pdf (Accessed: February 18, 2023). 

 Owens, B. (2017) ‘Cybersecurity for the travelling scientist’, Nature (London),

548(7665), pp. 123–124. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1038/548123a.

 Rabitz, F. (2015) ‘Biopiracy after the Nagoya Protocol: Problem Structure,

Regime Design and Implementation Challenges’, Brazilian political science
review, 9(2), pp. 30–53. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-
38212014000200010.

 Reid, J. (2009) ‘BIOPIRACY: THE STRUGGLE FOR TRADITIONAL

KNOWLEDGE RIGHTS’, American Indian law review, 34(1), pp. 77–98.

 Rose, J (2016). In The Conversation. ‘Biopiracy: when indigenous knowledge

is patented for profit’. Available at: https://theconversation.com/biopiracy-

8
 when-indigenous-knowledge-is-patented-for-profit-55589

 Ross, N. (2010) ‘Biopiracy’, Alternatives journal (Waterloo), 36(6), pp. 22–22

 Sathyanarayana, N. (2012). Traditional Knowledge Digital Library: An Innovative

Access to Protect Indian Traditional Knowledge. Journal of Intellectual Property
Rights, 17, 308-314.

 Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. (2011). Access and Benefit-

sharing: KeyElementsoftheNagoyaProtocol.Retrievedfrom
https://www.cbd.int/abs/keyelements.shtml

 Stubbs, J (2020). Hackers steal Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine data in

Europe, companies say. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ema-
cyber-idINKBN28J2Q7 (Accessed: February 2023).

 Techslang (ND). What is an Evil Maid Attack? Available at:

https://www.techslang.com/definition/what-is-an-evil-maid-attack/(Accessed:
February 2023).

 The 17 goals | sustainable development (2023) United Nations. United Nations.

Available at: https://sdgs.un.org/goals (Accessed: February 18, 2023). 

 United Nations Development Programme. (2012). Biopiracy Prevention: Building

Capacity andGoodPractices.Retrievedfrom
https://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/environment-energy/
biodiversity/biopiracy-prevention--building-capacity-and-good-practices.html

 United Nations Environment Programme. (2018). Combating Biopiracy: The

Importance of Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge. Retrieved
from https://www.unenvironment.org/news-and-stories/story/combating-biopiracy-
importance-genetic-resources-and-associated-traditional

 Vandebona, H. (2008). Traditional Knowledge and Intellectual Property Rights: The

Maya Case. International Indigenous Policy Journal, 1(2).
https://doi.org/10.18584/iipj.2008.1.2.5

 Vertisnksy & Heled (2022). Is Theft of DNA by Genetic 'Paparazzi' Our Next
Legal Nightmare?. Available at: https://people.howstuffworks.com/genetic-
paparazzi-dna-theft-news.htm (Accessed: February 2023).

 Waltz, E. (2016) ‘Seed spy pleads guilty’, Nature biotechnology, 34(3), pp. 223–
223. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0316-223b (Accessed: February
2023).

 Wynberg, R. (2014). Protecting Traditional Knowledge: The San Hoodia Benefit-

Sharing Agreement. In Biocultural Diversity in Europe (pp. 309-325). Springer
International Publishing.